I found the "come on then" gesture Bridge made with his right hand just before the attempted elbow smash on a helpless, prone player interesting. It clearly signalled intent.

Can we expect 16 pages now on Jarrod Sammut?

I do think Sammut will be lucky to avoid suspension.

It's hard to defend a player when he done something like that

A one match ban then.

Some key differences:

Sammut did not raise his arm above his own head and bring it down in a smashing action on a player prone on the ground in the manner of a particularly violent drama queen.

Somehow, despite this, the touch judge spotted it and brought it to the attention of the referee.

Let's just pause here for a moment and think about that.

Right, we're back. I think it's fscking incredible that one could be seen and the other not. I'm just as incredulous as you about that. If you saw both incidents before hand you might easily agree that one would be seen and the other not, but you'd have staked your money on completely the wrong incident.

Another difference - there was no contact between Sammut's elbow and the player on the ground.

One similarity - I thought there was intent from Sammut, and I would have no problem with a one match ban.

I thought it was silly play by Sammut but penalty sufficient, on this occasion. It was no worse than what you see most weeks in an average SL game. It was certainly not as bad as the TWO attack to Whitehead's head from Cockayne versus Wakey.

I'd be disappointed, but perhaps not surprised for the disciplinary to view the two incidents of worthy of the same ban.

A thought.

Chris Bridges incident was missed by the officials and thus action taken by the disciplinary panel.

Sammuts was seen, and supposedly sufficient action taken. Does that not mean they have deemed a penalty appropriate, considering it was NOT put on report?

Consistency and logic are often missing from RFL disciplinery decisions. Sammut will either get let off or a 10 game suspension.

Silly play but if Bridge only got 1 game for his then Sammut deserves 20 minutes.

On what basis do you make that statement???...



Neither of them were technically fouls (Both missed their intended targets), but both had the intention of being forearms into the face of an opponent.

If the RFL are consistant, which we know they aren't, then Sammut should get a one game ban.

Based on the fact that Sammut's tackle was no where near as bad, my suggestion of 20 minutes was tongue in cheek.

....Why wasn't it as bad?

If you have to ask then there's really no point going over all this again.

50/50 whether he gets a ban, with our current injuries he would be yet another massive blow.

I think he will get a ban, and we could not really complain. If it's more than one week though, I think we could.

Obviously it will be viewed as bias but I really didn't see much in it. It was foul play that was rightly punished there and then. But worth a 1 game ban? Not IMO.

I am asking......Both were intent over actual damage, both had similar intent.....So what's the difference?

or on the wind. Either way don't be such a TW[size=150^[/sizeT
=#FFFFFF---------------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF----\
=#FFFFFF-------------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF--------\
=#FFFFFF-----------------------------------------------------/iiiiiiiiiiiiiii\
=#FFFFFF---------------------------------------------------/=#FFFFFF----------------\

No difference at all lads.....Just take your blinkers off.

Well first of all Sammut actually made minimal contact with Hall, the forearm glances of the top of his head. Secondly in the Bridge incident, he was the sole defender so was very much in control of his own actions and deliberately dropped on Jeffries using a almost wrestling type move. In the Sammut incident there are 2 other defenders in attendance who pull Hall backwards. Hall at this point actually has hold of Sammut by his shirt neck and in effect pulls Sammut over the top of him.

It was a foul by Sammut which was rightly penalised. He'll be desperately unlucky to get a ban though and a lot worse has gone unpunished in games I have seen so far this year.

I'd agree that Sammut is a lot cleverer than Bridge, in that he uses the shield of it being a multiple tackle to carry out his foul - Bridge had nowhere to hide and was a lot more obvious.

However, there can be little doubt, that the intent of both 'tackles' was the same, and that was to injure an opponent illegally.

I think it is less conclusive of the 'intent' by Sammut given the circumstances I highlighted. The lack of contact also sets the incidents apart. Both fouls, but hardly comparable and certainly not deserving of the same punishment in my opinion.

Sorry to disagree but I think it will be adjudged as similar offence as Bridge and that we will have to do without Sammutt next week. Hope I'm wrong

On watching again this morning I was wrong about that. There was contact. Still not worth more than one week though.

My view on the incident. Sammut deliberately hit his forearm/elbow in Hall's face. 1 game ban.

All the Bulls have to do is plead guilty, Sammut doesn't have a hearing and he gets his ban reduced so that will be 0 games. It's the new hearing system Tony Smith was raving about last week, which IMO stinks.

The Sammut incident is 1 game ban, no more no less, but he can just plead guilty and he should get it reduced like Bridge did last week.

Sammut deliberately used his elbow on the opposition player. The sort of incident that was common place before VR & I remember fondly. Penalty, end of. Bridge appeared to have far more intent (& possible damage) behind it but I gave him marginal benefit of the doubt that he was not aiming for the head. Bridge was more stupid & can't argue with the one game. If the rules still permitted it a 10 minute sin bin would have been sufficient. But then you would get the usual paranoid fans screaming about consistency.